Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• A commercial tenant sought $9,489.17 in damages from his landlord for the alleged absence of a promised central air conditioning system.
   
• Interpretation of an "as is" acceptance clause in a signed commercial lease played a central role in the outcome.
   
• Conflicting testimony arose over whether verbal representations about air conditioning were made during a pre-lease site visit.
   
• Documentary evidence, including an online listing and a follow-up confirmation email, contained no mention of air conditioning.
   
• Credibility findings favoured the landlord's representative, who testified that only ventilation, not air conditioning, was discussed.
   
• The tenant bore the burden of proving his claim on a balance of probabilities and failed to meet that standard.
   

Facts of the case

Daniel Trimarchi leased commercial premises from Waff Logistics Inc. under a lease dated July 8, 2025. He claimed that the premises were supposed to be equipped with a central air conditioning system and that its absence, discovered upon taking possession, delayed the start of his business activities, forced him to buy a standing air conditioning unit, and caused him inconvenience and lost revenue. He sought $9,489.17 in damages. Waff denied ever agreeing that the premises would include air conditioning.

Policy and legislative provisions at issue

The written lease itself was silent on air conditioning. It did, however, contain an "as is" acceptance clause, under which Mr. Trimarchi acknowledged having carefully inspected the premises, declared himself fully satisfied, and waived any claim against the landlord regarding the condition of the premises, with any additional work, appliances, or equipment to be provided at his own expense. The tenant did not dispute having signed the lease containing this clause, but argued that separate verbal representations made around the time of signing had led him to believe air conditioning would be included.

Reasoning and analysis

The court assessed whether any representation had actually been made that the premises would include central air conditioning. An online listing Mr. Trimarchi responded to contained no reference to air conditioning, and neither did a follow-up email Waff sent confirming the terms discussed during the site visit, which covered rent, parking, utilities, and heating but not cooling. The court found credible the testimony of Waff's representative, who stated that only a ventilation system, present in both the leased premises and Waff's adjoining offices and warehouse, was discussed, not air conditioning. Neither Waff's offices nor its warehouse had air conditioning, making it unlikely, in the court's view, that its representative would have promised a central air conditioning unit that did not exist elsewhere on the property. The court concluded that Mr. Trimarchi had likely assumed or misunderstood the ventilation discussion as confirmation of air conditioning. It also noted that Waff had, without admitting any obligation, tried to accommodate him by lending him portable air conditioning units, an accommodation he found insufficient.

Ruling and overall outcome

Applying the balance-of-probabilities standard and finding that Mr. Trimarchi had not met his burden of proof, the court dismissed his claim in favour of Waff Logistics Inc. Waff was the successful party, and Daniel Trimarchi was ordered to pay Waff court costs of $223, representing the cost of filing the contestation. No other monetary amount was awarded, as the substantive claim was dismissed in its entirety.